PONE-D-24-60456What instruments are available to aid or evaluate personalised care delivery, from the perspectives of healthcare practitioners and service users? A narrative scoping review.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Johnson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE . After careful consideration and review, I believe your manuscript addresses an important and timely topic. While it has merit, it does not yet fully meet PLOS ONE ’s publication criteria in its current form. Therefore, I am inviting you to submit a major revision that addresses the points raised during the peer review process.

When submitting your revision through Editorial Manager , please include the following:

1. A rebuttal letter that responds point-by-point to each comment from the academic editor and reviewers. Upload this as Response to Reviewers .
2. A marked-up version of your revised manuscript showing all changes made (e.g., with Track Changes). Upload this as Revised Manuscript with Track Changes .
3. A clean version of your revised manuscript without tracked changes. Upload this as Manuscript .
4. If applicable, an updated financial disclosure statement in your cover letter.

 You may also consider depositing any protocols referenced in your review process to protocols.io , where they can be assigned a DOI and cited independently. For more details about submitting Lab Protocol articles, visit: https://plos.org/protocols .

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 12 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sefki Kolozali

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf .

2.  We are unable to open your figure file [Fig 2 Publications per year.eps]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors provided a comprehensive overview of current personalised care delivery and described the existing tools, instruments or methods for assessing, evaluating or measuring personalised care from the perspectives of healthcare practitioners and/or service users. This is an important review for the field of personalised care, as a well-established personalised care will benefit not only individuals, but also the wider health system.

The manuscript is well structured and well-written. It also proposed a framework of six domains for content analysis of health care instruments. The framework is a sensible attempt to evaluate the personalised care instruments. My suggestions are:

1 the Figure 2 is at low resolution and hard to read. It will be easier to understand the figure if move text "domain 3: understanding behaviour" into the magenta bar.

2 A weighing system of the six domains maybe introduced when evaluating the instruments. The importance of the six domains may vary depends on the needs of individuals.

Reviewer #2: The work provides a valuable contribution to the field, offering a comprehensive overview of existing instruments and proposing a conceptual framework. However, there are several areas that require attention to strengthen the manuscript.

While the review is thorough, the narrative occasionally loses focus. The introduction and discussion sections could benefit from more concise and targeted language to better guide the reader through your objectives and findings. For instance, the introduction could more sharply delineate the gap in the literature that your review addresses.

The methodology section is detailed, but the exclusion criteria, particularly the decision to exclude instruments measuring constructs like self-efficacy and patient activation, need more robust justification given their relevance to personalised care.

While the iterative refinement of the data extraction process is commendable, it would be useful to clarify how inter-rater reliability was ensured during study selection and coding. Did reviewers use any specific metrics (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) to measure agreement?

The discussion section effectively summarises the findings but could delve deeper into the implications of the identified gaps. For example, the lack of instruments that consider multiple perspectives (e.g., healthcare professionals, caregivers) is a significant limitation that warrants more extensive discussion regarding its impact on the field.

The manuscript notes that no single instrument captures all aspects of personalised care. Could this indicate a need for a multi-instrument approach rather than a single new tool?

The conclusion hints at future research needs but could be more specific. Highlighting particular areas where new instrument development is most urgently needed, especially in the context of multimorbidity, would provide a clearer roadmap for future studies.

There are instances where the language could be more polished, such as: "prevenance" (line 67) should likely be "prevalence.", "Personlised" (figure 3 legend) should be "Personalised.". Phrases like "a plethora of instruments" could be replaced with more precise language. Additionally, varying sentence length and structure would improve readability and engagement, particularly in the discussion section.

Overall, your manuscript is a strong foundation that, with some refinement, can make a significant impact on the field of personalised care evaluation. I look forward to seeing the revised version.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

What instruments are available to aid or evaluate personalised care delivery, from the perspectives of healthcare practitioners and service users? A narrative scoping review.

PONE-D-24-60456R1

Dear Dr. Johnson

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sefki Kolozali

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed most of the comments raised in their revision. They also explained the reason why one of the suggestions were not included in the revision. Based on the quality of the revised manuscript. I think it is acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Basma A. Al-Ghali

**********